Letters to the Editor

At face value, Ms. Monroe's letter on abortion (Abortion should be personal choice), propounds one of the most callous and rapacious ethical commentaries I have ever read. I feel compelled to respond.

Essentially her argument reads: "It's my body/baby and I'll do what I want to!" Saying this plucks the abortion debate from the realm of principled conduct (what is right/wrong/evil/good) to the sphere of personal choice (what I want/need). I am not sure this is a step in the 'right' direction.

Is our right to choose unlimited? No. Civilized societies restrict human choices. Such restrictions are principled and objective; they rise above and control my right to choose. Without them, anarchy becomes inevitable. For example:

Our right to choose must bow before the demands of human justice. "Justice is the firmest pillar of good government." Justice protects the innocent, weak, and defenseless members of society. Can justice ever smile when the innocent are put to death?

Our right to choose must also bow before the dignity of human beings. Human beings are unique and valued by civilized society. Our humanness is independent of our age, race, social status, IQ, physical abilities, etc. Being bigger, smarter, stronger, and richer does not, therefore, make one more human.

How then can we assign one value to an unborn fetus and another to a newborn baby? Does this not confer an unwarrantable significance to the baby's passage through the birth canal? Simply put - being born does not make one human, nor does it lift the 'termination' of an unwanted fetus beyond the realm of murder.

In the name of progress many may want these principles removed. To do so will move us forward, but will it be in the right direction? I think not.

DR. NEIL STEWART, M.D.

Savannah

'Dorothy Pelote Viaduct'

renaming a big success

I want to express my gratitude to everyone involved in the renaming of the former Bay Street Viaduct after the honorable Dorothy Barnes Pelote. Thanks go to the elected officials, former elected officials, judges and neighborhood associations and guests for making the bridge renaming a success.

I cannot express how much I appreciated everyone's presence regarding this auspicious occasion. This representation demonstrated the commitment to the community at large.

REGINA THOMAS

State Senate, District 2

Savannah

Allow international students to work off-campus

As a multinational country with extensive opportunities, the U.S. is the most tempting destination for foreign students and employees. When American economic potentials are taken advantage of by illegal immigrants, the government is provoked to toughen the immigration policies which affect law-abiding non-Americans; the most vulnerable category being international students, who need money the most and yet who are the most deprived of the opportunity to make it.

International students are often among the most zealous and successful in academia despite cultural, linguistic, and financial barriers. If this is the case, then why are foreign students not allowed to work at outside institutions, since they are likely to succeed in their studies anyway?

As an F-1 visa holder, I can work (and always have) up to 19 hours a week. Sounds like a substantial number, yet the opportunity is confined to on-campus jobs only where salaries are not enough to live on. My on-campus job barely covers the rent and food supplies (no car, no cell-phone, and no extra expenses), while money American students make serves their comfort, distracting from studies. I don't say that no one should work on-campus, but the competition to fill better positions off-campus should be even. Moreover, annual salaries of foreign students' parents are comparable to American monthly salaries, while in-state tuition favors US students. (If Americans concentrated on education, the average time spent in college would not be the present 6.5 years and would not cost huge budget funds to maintain campus facilities and provide tuition.)

I believe that American and international students should be given the equal opportunity for their financial stability, especially weighing how America has always based its economy on the considerable intake of international employees. If it is obvious that allowing foreign students to work off-campus would not harm anyone, then why should we suffer?

IVAN SOPIN

AASU student

Newspaper's war reporting purposefully gloomy

Your October 19 headline (11 U. S. Troops Killed in Irag) was very asd to see. I believe it was done to discourage and not to report. The reader only has to glance and see how obvious your attempt was to sell doom and gloom. Those 11 troops were for the entire month yet it reads as if it hallpned overhight.

There were a reported 600 homicides in Chicago last year. Is it time to pull the police out of Chocago? Or how about this 42,000 people die each year in automobile accidents. Is it time to switch to bicycles?

As a former Marine infantryman I was told to keep up on the world news in order to know where we might be sent. If tested and failed you could not attain higher rank. In today's world you might be better off not reading the headlines and instead go directly to Charles Krauthammer or George Will. They illustrate commonsense and articulate circles around Maureen Dowd. Bad news sells. Bad headlines miss represent and can sway the non reading voter.

Andy Skokna

Rincon

Nuclear plants are

nonsmoking facilities

A full-color photo on the front page of the Exchange section included the caption, "The containment domes at Plant Vogtle smoke at sunset." This misinformation is appalling.

First, those are cooling towers, not containment domes.

Second, that is not smoke. It is water vapor, which is the major selling point about nuclear power: no smoke.

That the Savannah Morning News could be so negligent in its reporting is beyond comprehension.